50-year-old federal public offender program with eastern district of virginia public defender. "washington journal" is next. host: it is shaping up to be a busy week in washington. the u.s. senate takes another key procedural vote on a bill to extend unemployment benefits. the talk is of one-year extension in the works now. and keeping the government through next wednesday -- that is when funding runs out. the white house has sent vice president joe biden to jerusalem for the funeral of the late

israeli leader arial sharon. and the president's team is closely watching the supreme court to watch the argument over recess appointments and whether they are constitutional. want to get your thoughts on whether the president can make recess appointments, under what conditions are the , if the court gears up to hear arguments today. here are the numbers to call. host: if not by phone you can @cspanwj, on twitter, facebook, and e-mail. " covershow "the hill the story.

"nothing less than the boundaries of executive power are at stake monday as the supreme court considers whether president obama violated the constitution during his first term. oral arguments slated for monday will center on a trio of recess appointments to the national labor relations board. if they uphold the decision, experts say that the justices could endanger hundreds of nlrb decisions. even more significant other ramifications for feature presidents, the court poised to bolster or blended the chief executives appointment powers. 'rulings like this have implications that last for ,'according to a labor attorney and cochairman of the workplace policy institute." that is one of many right ups on the court today. it is a busy period for the court right now. "the washington post" has this headline.

they point out that over the next "100 days or so, it will hear oral argument in only 25 cases." they go want to talk specifically about the case they are hearing today." "the marquis case on the court's agenda as a register is a good example. for 200 years the court is not headed to rule on the meaning of the constitutional provision that allows the president to make recess appointment of high-level government officials when the senate is not in .ession to provide consent the clause states that the president shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate. nearly every president has used this power, and the executive and legislative branches, no matter which party was in control, have made grudging accommodations. but an extraordinary level of the gridlock between senate republicans and president obama has forced the issue." "e more graphic here --

republicans used the filibuster to block appointments to the nlrb to the extent that the board cannot function, and then, barring -- borrowing a procedure pioneered by senate democrats when president bush -- george w. bush was president, they used pro forma sessions and most people were out of town to keep obama from making recess appointments." we want to get your thoughts on recess appointments as the supreme court hears the case today. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of your screen for you. host: we will get your calls in just a moment. via facebook, very simply, "stick to the constitution. separation of powers." a little bit later, chuck writes, "nothing will happen,

the current administration has corrupted the court." early opinions on this topic. "the washington times" writes a little bit about this as well. "for the supreme court, whether president obama's recess appointments were legal could well rest on whether the justices decide what presidents andington, jefferson madison, or whether they stick with the 40 man who follow the founders. the case the court will hear today has all the makings of a legal thriller with the supreme court call to settle the spat." joe, south bend, indiana, democratic line should good morning. what do you make of the court taking up this idea of recessive women's -- recessive women's? -- recess appointments? caller: if this is republicans, they don't want it in there. they do it when bush was in there. host: keep going, joe.

caller: it is just politics, that is all it is. from carolyn in delaware. caller: it must be constitutional because bush did it quite often, to get i don't know why it is a big problem now except that republicans are trying to add more gridlock and stop obama's policies. host: back to facebook, we saw ruth writing, "stick to the constitution. operation of powers. writes, "it is sticking to the constitution, it it specifically gives the president the power to make appointments." there is the address for twitter again. host: the cortex of this case

today and we are actually going to get the oral argument delivered later in the week u.s.. typically on these cases we get the argument later. in this case it is going to be friday when the court puts it out. we will presented to you on television, probably friday evening, i would imagine. one more write-up on this from the ap. -- a disputelicans between the president and senate republicans over the power to fill positions. it is the first in the nation sister to consider the meaning of the provision of the constitution that allows the president to make temporary appointments to positions that otherwise require senate confirmation, but only when the senate is in recess." "this courtut that battle is the outgrowth of increasing partisanship and the stalemate has been a hallmark of washington in years, especially

since obama took office in 2009." sydney on the line from louisiana now. caller: good morning. i have the question of where in the cost -- where the constitution say that the supreme court can make a ruling whether a law is constitutional or not. judge scalia said on one-year programs that it was not -- on one of your programs that it was not in the constitution. they just took the authority to do it. host: anything else, sidney? caller: no, that's it, they don't have the power. host: good morning, judy. judy is in virginia beach, judy is a democrat. caller: i don't understand why after two hundred years the presidents have had the power that they find it necessary to make changes now. host: so what do you think is at play here? caller: too much politics.

i think that for some reason, now there is a question of everything that the president .oes, and this has not happened i don't understand why the courts are involved, i don't know how the lower courts found it unconstitutional, because it has been done. host: tom is calling from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. republican. caller: hello. tanks for c-span. my comment is that i think it is kind of comical that the people who are calling in constantly talking about george bush -- george bush did this, george bush did that. i thought this president was supposed to be the big change from george bush. hope and change his but he ran on. yet they keep bringing up george bush as a way to compensate for what obama is doing. i think it is ridiculous. host: thanks for calling.

this "washington post" piece, let me read it again, the passage about moving from the past i to the present. borrowing a procedure pioneered by senate democrats when mr. bush was president, they forced the senate into a pro forma sessions when most senators were out of town to keep obama for making recess appointments. obama responded equally brazenly. unlike bush, obama and january 2010 may give women's anyway. -- made the appointments anyway could he declared that despite the pro forma sessions, the senate was not really available to conduct business by voting on his nominees. a decision by a panel of the u.s. court of appeals ratcheted , ruling that the president may make recessive

women's only during the annual breaks between sessions of congress, sometimes those last only minutes, and the vacancies must occur during those breaks in order for the president to fill them." mark is calling on the republican line. caller: well, thank you for having my call. if any of the democrats or liberals, mostly, in this particular instance, were listening to what you just said, george bush never made any recess appointments when the senate was in recess because the senate always came in and cap open and gaveled out so that they were -- came in and gaveled they wereeled out so always in session, pro forma session. but when republicans do the same thing, obama says, oh, no, no, i'm going over your head. we are debating about whether he can have them when the senate is still in session, also

known as the pro forma session. in theocrats did this last two years of when bush was president. now obama doesn't like it so he changes the law, does what he wants. we will see what the supreme court, the supreme court of justice roberts, if it is going to be fair to the constitution or for two obama. -- fair to obama. we will have to wait and see. thank you for your time. host: evan writes on facebook host: steve, you are calling from virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi, steve. caller: yes, i think the president has every right to -- he is our commander-in-chief. if he can't do that, he can't do

anything. this is a little bit ridiculous. they want you -- they want to bring this down to this level and destroy the country. the president is president. respect the office and let him do his job to that is about all i got to say. host: debbie is calling for michigan. go ahead, you are on the independent line. caller: hi. i don't believe they can rule against the president making recess appointments because it is in the constitution. they need to rule on whether the senate has the right to pretend that it is in session when it is actually not in session. host: the difference between those pro forma sessions and regular old recesses, right? caller: yeah. to me, pro forma sessions are recesses. and for people saying that obama doesn't have the right to do that, i think obama is trying to clarify the situation. this is going to affect both republicans and democratic

presidents in the future. it is not a partisan issue, if you think about it. they need to find whether they will uphold the constitution and let the president appoint recess isointments when the senate actually in recess, and pro forma is not an active session. it is a recess. host: the court hears the case today and we will have the oral arguments later in the week for you. the ap points out that a few hours after the court hears the scheduled toate is vote on the nomination of robert wilkins am a currently a federal trial judge, to serve on the federal appeals court in the district of columbia. senate democrats changed the rules over fears republican opposition after the gop lost the nomination of wilkins to the ." the nomination process continues in the senate.

you can watch the senate on c-span2 later today. the house is in session, by the way, all meet as well. -- all week as well. government funding runs out on wednesday. they may need a temporary bill. russ, independent caller. caller: good morning. my comment is in reference to the pro forma vs. the current ongoing debate, and the organization that is -- that the president is establishing precedence of -- sorry -- nominating appointees and then putting them in their position after the senate has recessed. i don't think it is necessarily -- it is not that sure the president have this power. it is granted that he should, and i believe it was established

that it was an emergency if a vacancyat became available, the president could in fact appoint someone during that time. the fact that the court has not ruled over 200 years, i think it needs to make a decision, what establishes the power of the presidency to make a recess appointment, and when can he in fact to do that? host: appreciate your feedback, russ. ethyl hanging on in texas. caller: another question. how come anybody in this country ever broke the constitution they were put in jail or something? -- i wasthis president raised with six children with no father around. orced peoplent has f to go into obamacare, and they

don't want it because it is to high, they cannot live. i'm 69 years old. i work since the age of 14, and and i gotid medicare, disabled at the age of 60 when my husband died and i have no job, no money, and disabled. i didn't holler about it. president, he has broke so many of our constitution, especially the freedom of choice, and i don't think he should be allowed to get away with it. will get right, sl, we some other viewpoints in a few minutes, but we want to step back and talk more broadly about congress at this point in the morning. it is going to be a busy week. on the phone, a reporter with "the hill."

good morning, pete. guest: how you doing? host: talk to us about the budget first. we have been waiting for the on the business spending bill to be unveiled. has that happened yet? guest: you know, it hasn't been as of last night and you remind me to check for you guys. we hadn't seen it yesterday. it is the mission of the week for congress. they will do it in 2 stages, past the short-term bill for saturday. that will give them time to morele through the big than $1 trillion spending bill for the rest of the year. that is what we figure they will do this week. the sense is that in the house it will pass pretty easily on tuesday. the senate will probably follow on the same day and knock that out. given 3 or number four days -- it will give 3 or 4 days left to figure out the rest of the spending bill.

they should be able to push that through. would you make a good point that we have to see the bill, and a lot of members will see it and have a few days to look at it and it is usual cap -- as usual these things, with surprises. it looks like they will finish by friday or saturday. host: take this through the unemployment bill. --st: that sort of blue was blew up in the senate. the democrats came up with a new idea for an 11 month extension of emergency on employment benefits paid for by extending the famous sequester that we'll talk about -- we talked about. then democrats said they would not look at any republican amendments and then hit people funny because a lot of republicans held to against the bill earlier in the week and suddenly democrats were saying we won't consider any of your ideas of paying for this. that seemed to change by friday. will probably look at some republican amendments

but do not say which one. are there a certain number or in certain kinds of amendments they would look at that might help enact the bill? host: what is the timing on the senate bill and do you see the house taking this up at all? it is really hard to say. the senate could take a while. we need to hear more this morning and early this week to see what their plan is. if they can pass something to get republican support for how it is paid for, you might see the house consider it. moveouse is not going to first. republicans over there made it clear that they want to focus on things like job training, things that get people back to work as opposed to extending unemployment benefits. the senate would have to go first no matter what you even generate any interest. if they can do that and get some gop support, the house could look at it. theill have to see what senate is capable of doing and

what they can agree to first. host: it's only monday. they do have a one-week recess next week, so they are looking to move forward as far as they can. take us over to committee. last week wasn't necessarily the biggest we -- biggie -- busiest week in committee. what do they have this week? on,t: not a whole lot going but the house has 2 obamacare hearings. republicans continue to push that issue. this week they even have a vote on an obamacare bill that would -- requireple to weekly reports on how the enrollment is going, what kind of glitches we have on the website. republicans are not letting that go. still a big issue for the gop. and this is something we can expect all year. republicans keep thinking that the premiums are higher and people are losing their plans and so it seems there is at least 1 wonderful to a week, a week,-- 1 or 2

hearings on obamacare. host: the state of the union is coming. from what you could tell on the hill these days and over at the white house, what will that speech be like and just as importantly, how will republicans, the president must message -- how will republicans message?e president's guest: is a funny time. the white house is caught between a 2 funny realities. there is to say improvement in the job market. it always comes down to jobs, it seems a bit at the same time, pushing the unemployment benefits and having an extended. most people think it is a mixed economy, and that is going to make it a difficult speech to tie all these ideas together, to say that we are improving but we still need help for people. that has been a messaging problem. republicansunch of who are still fuming -- feeling

the road to and all these other issues. although the things they don't want to let go. -- all of these things that i want to let go. the classic battle of is the government. i suppose people call it messaging but it is fighting back and forth. in a lot of ways it is similar to what we have seen the last few years and the gop will combat it by saying we have a better idea to give jobs. is turning into one great election season and everything is a message. the speech will be a message and the gop response will all be messaged to death until we get to a vote o if we feel like voting. , thankste kasperowicz for your time this morning. house on c-span, the senate on c-span two. we are watching the supreme court as it hears oral arguments

on the case involving recess appointments. story thatm an ap moved yesterday by mark sherman. and "the washington post" mike says that the -- reminds us that case -- "for 200 years the court has not had to rule on the meaning of the constitution that allows the president to make these recess appointments of high-level government officials when the senate is not in session to provide consent. the clause states that the president shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate and nearly every president, they write, has used the power of the executive branches and legislative branches, no matter which party was in control, have made lodging accommodations. but an extraordinary level of political gridlock between senate republicans and the president has forced the issue."

landon, you have been hanging on from richmond. republican line. caller: i have a couple statements to make. see that a public is much more educated on subjects, whereas nobody really paid attention to politics very much until we got barack obama. now, i am a republican, and the president is a constitutional lawyer, and he knows the constitution. there's is a lot of things in the constitution that are being done which people always object to. politician'sa nightmare, because what happens in the next 2 years, so many cases in the court that they don't want to go to court because they can get away with a lot of things. this is the way i feel about it.

what's happening now, the trying everything, because he will only be here 2 more years, he's gone. he will be a pleasant thought or bad thought. and this new president, whoever comes in after him, is going to be hamstrung by so many new rules and laws that they put in to fight the president. thank you so very much. host: here is the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. sharon,espect for ariel and the legacy in the mideast." he died on saturday at the age of 85. u.s. delegation is led by vice

president joe biden and the honorable daniel schapiro, u.s. ambassador to israel. members of numbers -- of commerce on the delegation -- eliot engel, debbie wasserman schultz. -- service has been ongoing time difference. we are getting some other material today and we will show you that in our program schedule. timothy from montgomery, alabama. caller: thank you for taking my call so much. just to let you know, i am in the final year of law school, and this issue is very intriguing to me. i have 2 quick points and then i will leave y'all be. first of all, the level of racism that i personally have experienced with regards to president obama is just astounding. host: what do you mean? caller: growing up in the south, particularly alabama, you learn so much more about civil rights

struggle that in other places, i would be willing to that. even here in montgomery, this is the heart of the civil rights movement in many respects, the cradle of the confederacy. and there is lingering hatred that simmers under the surface. people use terminology that overtas hot button or as because it isn't socially acceptable -- host: so if that is what you see and hear, link it to the topic. caller: exactly. so with the supreme court, i think that they will find that the constitution allows the senate to create their own rules and procedures for how they conduct their meetings, just as the house does. the supreme court, i'm willing to bet, is eventually going to find that these performance sessions count as -- pro forma sessions count positions because

the senate says they are sessions and president obama will have a violated the constitution. the earlier point i was trying to make is that people are so vitriolic about this issue, because, i think, it is hangovers, vestiges of the older population who just cannot stand that we have a president who doesn't fit the mold of the 40-plus others we have already -- i'ding a wideout anglo-saxon protestant. kenendy faced a similar hatred because of his catholicism. it is not socially acceptable. people my age, even though there are people who do not like president obama, it is more for policy reasons than anything else. people just object to anything the president does. host: going to let you go, timothy. thanks for your comments this morning. we go to twitter now.

host: some other news this morning. "the new york times" and all the other papers reporting on iran negotiators putting the final touches on this record. six world powers completed a deal on sunday that will temporarily freeze much of tehran's nuclear program in exchange for limited relief from western economic sanctions. the main elements of the deal, which is to last for 6 months, were announced in november, but the latest implementation among negotiators worked out technical details." that is "the new york times" this morning. we have charlie in maryland. i believe that the supreme court looks at the context of when this rule was made. we were an agrarian society and it took a lot longer for senators to get back into session. i believe that there has been a

slow erosion to the my hope ison, and that even though this is a technical question, they take the constitution in the context of when it was made serious so that they continue to enforce what the founders really wanted, which was only emergency when they needed someone at the helm. now we really don't have that and it has been abused by all the presidents and that is -- i think the rule needs to be changed. thank you. host: anthony, ohio. democratic line. caller: good morning. long time listener and this is the fourth time i've been able to call in many, many years. thank you for your program and its content. i am an attorney, although not a constitutional attorney, and i have a couple remarks. will, the word "shall"

prove operative, where the president gets the power to make appointments. big thing in any context in law. number two, chief justice roberts urines to be the next earl be the next-- yearns to much as just as warm and was able to bring justices from different programs to make one of the most important decisions in our nations history, brown versus the board of education. the health care decision and he doesn't want to fail again. he tried. you made an interesting decision on the tax laws, which lawyers and nonlawyers -- he made an interesting decision on the tax laws, which lawyers and nonlawyers will debate. the most important factor has been and will be justice kennedy. ,ntil justice kennedy retires

he is going to be the key linchpin. all the justices who share the history from the 2000 decision that led to the elevation of mr. bush as president continue to have very serious concerns, because many of us out here, lawyers and nonlawyers, see seesition as the concert -- that decision as the conservatives, who are usually not active, as active in the florida case. and the liberals, who are usually active, not being so active. i think the court is under fire. as a lawyer who was able to be admitted to the court in 1997, it is a very prestigious institution. i share the sentiment with many of my colleagues that the court is not what it has been. i think you will see a tough struggle, and a lot of debate,

but ultimately, if i had to guess now, it is going to come ton to an effort for roberts make it unanimous decision, but it is probably going to be of 5-4 or 6-3 decision upholding the appointment, because the final comment i would make is that all the justices know the court would be making a decision if they reverse the nlrb appointments and others would be sending the country into chaos with all the decisions that have been made and that is the other concern they have to keep in mind. host: all right, anthony, appreciate your comments this money. on twitter host: if you go to twitter and you look at the governor of west thatnia, he has a tweet came out yesterday and it sadly says -- simply says

host: when you click on it, it lists a bunch of places where folks can go to get water. as you heard, west virginia is coping with days of water woes. here is the headline in "the washington post" this morning. "a chemicalng with that is hard to pronounce. "logs and branches floated downstream toward the junction in the heart of the city. potholes on the beat-up country roads had turned into puddles. 'do not use water', the sign says." fox news has this headline. host: richard, lake placid,

florida. independent. good morning. caller: good morning, paul. obama,y, president making appointments without the consent of congress, that is one minor -- i call it minor -- constitutional violations he is making. he does it on a daily basis, especially with obamacare. he modifies obamacare at will. it's supposed to be -- if there is a change to it, it is supposed to go through congress. all appointments by the president are supposed to be in consent and that it by congress. that protect the people and the nostitution, which he has use for whatsoever. i think congress needs to get involved in this room a they need to look at this as grounds for impeachment and carry

forward with that. cj, carbondale, illinois. good morning. caller: i spent a year in the marine corps and i was deeply engaged in politics. the more you educate yourself on situation. very dark partisans who the got us to this point, the point where we have to go to the supreme court just over recess appointments, it shows the breakdown that has been going on in our government. partisan americans in power did this to happen, where we are fighting amongst ourselves over small issues. these recess appointments are relatively small issues. and this whole racism back and forth is all a distraction. there is only 2 parties that

control in this country, that's it. the democrats and the republicans. you keep empowering these guys, as long as you keep believing the lies under subsequent news networks that don't even really cover real news, as long as you guys keep believing that, we're going to keep having the same problems. >one-story emerging this morning isn't ho -- host: one-story emerging this morning is in politico. "hillary's hit list." jonathan allee by n and amie parnes. some of the people they point "hillaryis book --

clinton staffers made a list of democratic members of congress, rating them from 1, most helpful, to 7, most treacherous. here are some of the 7s. john kerry, senator ted kennedy, senator jay rockefeller, claire mccaskill, e, the senator, congressman chris van hollen, illmer representative baron hl on the not so good list." politico -- the story is on politico and others are picking up this morning. we will talk about congress from a different angle -- this dealing with members and their staffs and where they're working, here or in the district. more are moving more towards district work. here's the headline from "national journal's "h hotline."

we have mr. bland on the phone this morning. guest: good morning. host: what is the trend you are noticing? thet: well, basically, vital statistics on congress have been tracking district-based staff in the house and senate for a number of years now. it has been rising fairly consistently since 1972, when it first started tracking. then, fewer than one quarter of in the staffers were district. now it is 46%. not the highest number on record, but close to it. the benefits are fairly obvious. at a time when not much is getting done in washington, the marginal benefit of having of the -- having another policy staffer is outgained by the

marginal benefit of having another district staffer who can help people navigate trouble fromthe federal government recovering lost social security benefits to mediating with the iris and getting a passport. host: does this have a negative effect on the legislative process back year -- back here? guest: that is a good question. it is -- there's is probably an extent to which having more voices involved in staff involved would help, but the way i see it is i see it more of an effect of how concentrated legislative power has become an congress in the hands of committee chairs and party leadership and the fact that if newer members are looking to make an impact in their district to show that they are really can't pushing something, work in the district and constituent services is the best avenue forward at this point. host: how does the money work

with these offices? kaneda spy -- decide on -- can they decide on the round where to spend the money? guest: each side gets certain allotments and they have to be careful to not overspend before the end of the year, that sort of thing. one of the biggest costs in the district can be for rent. bound to howpper many of these offices you can open up. there is wide leeway in terms of base.ny staff to most members seem to have around 15 to 20 staff in their individual office, and we have seen double-digit in washington or in the district and everything in between. host: do you expect this trend to continue? what might be the overall impact? guest: i don't see any reason for the trend not to continue. i think the impact, again, is that -- i really think the

impact is being driven by a little bit of what is happening in washington. it is so hard to break into the legislative process that it just makes more sense to invest in these personal offices. maybe the long-term trend that is that it becomes easier for constituents to access their members. one of the problems with constituent services is that people don't always know that this option is available. if they are having trouble with some aspect of the federal government, they can turn to their member of congress and their staff for help. maybe directing more staff -- a lot of members do mobile office hours in their districts and the driver out and try to bring themselves to constituents as opposed to waiting for phone call. i could be one of the potential long-term -- that could be one of the potential long-term effects. host: scott bland is a senior analyst at "hotline."

thank you for your time this morning. thet time in 200 years supreme court is dealing with the permission of the last edition that deals with the president's ability to make .ecess appointments the case itself focuses on nlrb nominations. william in arkansas, thank you for waiting. caller: i have kind of a wacky idea. since we are paying these knuckleheads $175,000 a year, maybe they can go on recess a lot less. they have worked less than half a year during the calendar year. maybe we could go on recess a lot less. int: ok, let's try del bethlehem, pa. oneer: surprised that no has called up with the actual facts on this recess case. maybe people don't know what, but some of them have been waiting more than 2 years.

it is not like he's trying to sneak somebody in unqualified. they just refuse to vote on him. departments like the environmental protection and consumer protection summit they have been without any directors and they can't function and that is what the republican party is. they don't want it to function. even though those agencies were created under republican presidents, they are so totally against helping people -- they are nothing more than the ku klux klan with college degrees. they are so out of control. thursday's paper show that the deficit came down by 40% over the last quarter of this past year. experts are saying that it is coming down to quickly. a lot republicans are yelling that the deficit is out of control. call, bill from marietta, georgia.

caller: good morning, happy new year. host: same to you. caller: wow, this is really interesting. for the first time in years the supreme court is going to take up an issue with the first black president, which is kind strange. i believe republicans in the supreme court and congress will do anything to obstruct this president. it seems like one of those guys -- seems like none of those guys are in the same place as the rest of the americans in this country. host: that was our last call on this topic. wait for the oral argument later on in the week on c-span. we will take a brief timeout and let you know that our guest is michele flournoy, former undersecretary policy in the obama administration, talking to us about iraqi and afghanistan and other topics. a little later, we will talk about the impact of the affordable care act. lots more time for your calls. we will be right back.

was the firstn sitting first lady to address the united nations and the first to address the nation in a joint appearance with the president. >> for my young friends out there, it life can be great, but not when you can't see it. open your eyes to life to see the vivid colors that god gave

us as a precious gift to his children, to enjoy life to the fullest, and to make it count. for the rest of your life. and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady lady nancy reagan, as our original series "first image,"influence and continues tonight at nine a clock eastern on c-span and c-span three. i see it, oneas of the bigger court cases that could potentially transform the sector.ations michael powell, former chairman fcc, said that the biggest thing that is going to change our spaces this case. see potentially the supreme court pick this up and find out one way or the other whether the service is legal

under copyright law. >> what the fcc does this year is going to be determined by brand-new, very dynamic chairman, who used to head of wireless association and the cable association and he is not afraid to come out swinging. >> one of the biggest issues on the hill right now for the tech world is going to be surveillance reform. 2013 was a big year for surveillance with the snowden leaks, and that will keep coming, the leaks will keep coming, we are told. president obama will address his review group's recommendations, 46 reclamation, some of which the white house is likely to accept, but some are getting more contentious and we will see where the white house stance on these issues. tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2.

"washington journal" continues. host: at the table, michele flournoy, former defense undersecretary in the obama administration. good morning. guest: good morning. host: our guest is now with the center for a new american security, cochair of the board of directors. we are here to talk about afghanistan and other matters, and we begin with this headline in "the washington times." " iraq's chaos could be omen for afghanistan without u.s. troops." fghanistan's war planners might want to cast an eye towards iraq. a defeated al qaeda in iraq has resembled, bringing fresh fighters and prisoners and unleashing waves of deadly car bombings. last week, al qaeda claimed control of falluja, a town in western and our province where scores of americans lost their lives in houston house fighting in 2004. the same situation could befall

afghanistan as the taliban, the haqqani network, and al qaeda wait patiently." guest: i do think we have to be careful about withdrawing our support and assistance for tooanistan to quickly -- quickly. i think a lot of progress has been made. the afghan security forces are leading the provision of , butity across the country they still need our help. i think that if we pull out completely and to quickly and even cut off our assistance role , we could find ourselves with afghanistan flooding back into a more chaotic situation that would provide opportunities for al qaeda and the broader insurgency. but i think the dynamics of what is going on in iraq are somewhat different. what has happened in iraq is that prime minister maliki has

taken an increasingly sectarian approach, and rather than partnersith the sunni who were originally part of her broader coalition when he was reelected, he chose a more security and past and tried to start -- more sectarian cap and try to start marginalizing them, try to accuse political rivals of crimes, he withdrew support security of the sunni forces and so forth, and created the situation he is now dealing with, a very alienated, inginalized sunni population theirthat because of dissatisfaction opened a fertile ground for al qaeda to come back in. the drivers of the situation are somewhat different. with usr guest will be for 35 for 40 more minutes. we will take your calls and tweets. phone lines on the bottom of the screen for michele flournoy. host: there is also this recent

todline -- "karzai unlikely meet the deadline on signing the long-term security deal." this from a u.s. envoy. can you give us the latest their and your thoughts on it? guest: as you know, the u.s. needs a new agreement with afghanistan to have a legal basis to continue to provide military advice, assistance, training beyond 2014 when the current mission ends. this would not be u.s. troops in a combat role. it would be and advise and assist role behind the scenes. karzai, for reasons that are hard to understand, has refused to sign the agreement, even jirga, which he convened, overwhelmingly signraged -- urged him to the agreement. every presidential contender in

afghanistan would come out in support of the agreement. it is hard to understand why karzai's and going forward. some argued he does not want to isn't goingrzai forward. some argue that he doesn't want to be a lame duck and this is his final act of relevance. goinghard to know what is on in his mind but it is, getting u.s. and nato planning -- it is complicating u.s. and nato planning. , i thinkr this delays karzai is risking putting us in a position where it would be hard to make good on the commitment that is very much in u.s. interests. host: before we go to calls, let's shift back to iraq. we are talking about both with our guest michele flournoy. usare is a headline in " today" and the title "losing iraq."

we want to show you a clip of senator john mccain on a cnn morning program yesterday about the significant violent upticks in iraq. [video clip] >> this president wanted out. we got out. the -- they would never say the number of trips they wanted to have their, somali ke --so own way anding his we are seeing a dramatically increased iranian influence in iraq. >> watching what is going on in iraq now, you think there is absolutely nothing of the u.s. -- that the u.s. can do that purge certainly the al qaeda members out of iraq? i apologize if i gave you the wrong impression. first of all, no combat troops, obviously. let's get that out of the way. but we could provide them with assistance, we could provide logistic support, we can provide them with apache helicopters. but at the same time, maliki has

got to have an anbar awakening. he has got to reach out to the sunnis, he has got to have reconciliation. when we left and the iranian shia influence increased, and by the way, we could have kept a residual force their and anybody who says we couldn't have is not telling the truth. i would suggest perhaps sending david petraeus and ambassador crocker back to their. trusts them. and try to get this thing sorted out, because it is not just iraq. when you look at iraq and syria, you are seeing in al qaeda enclave there, and that is dangerous to national security, not to mention what is happening in a serious, where again, the united states is disengaged. thank god for the saudi's. we are starting to see a little bit of personal there, thank on. -- a little bit of reversal there, thank god. host: michele flournoy, what is

your take? guest: i think, actually, we heard from the white house yesterday that the u.s. is redoubling both its diplomatic and its to maliki offers of assistance in terms of intelligence, technical support, military equipment, and so forth, to try to bolster iraq thisbility to deal with renewed threat from al qaeda. i think it ministration is pressing maliki on this issue. i think senator mccain is right that the key issue is maliki and getting him to renew his sunni community to pursue a nuclear reconciliation effort, which, frankly, he hasn't done during his time in office. where i would differ with senator mccain respectfully is on the history. i think this president sought an

agreement to keep some number of u.s. forces in iraq. i was very much a part of that process. but at the end of the day, i think maliki understood he had to take such an agreement to his parliament. he believes at the time that his asonents would use the vote a no-confidence vote to take his government down. he wasn't willing to go forward. no secretary of defense, no president should be willing to put american troops into a country without legal protection and immunity. it is not a tenable position. host: here is one of the headlines to back up what our guest is saying. seemsofficials say maliki ready to listen on aid, outreach." this from "the washington post." we have a fourth phone line this morning for veterans eri.

we look forward to speaking to all of you. and just the broader headline -- "losing iraq." this is "usa today." flournoy, a broader view of what has happened in iraq, what is happening now? hadt: i think that iraq has a tremendous opportunity to move forward, and in some ways it has functioning security forces and so forth. again, the real problem in iraq has been prime minister maliki's pursuit of a very sectarian agenda, missing the opportunity to actually foster reconciliation, elting a multi-sectarian coalition, and so forth. that is really what he has to turn to now. that is what the u.s. is pressing him to do. whether he can credibly do so at this point in time is an open

question. iran has been pushing him in other directions. i think that what is happening on his border with syria with the unrest in the chaos inside syria is part of what is creating this opportunity for al qaeda. this is a much more complicated and dangerous situation. i think maliki is going to have to work very hard to recover. i think we need to do the and te in that direction if he is willing to do their. is the former administrator of politics. tom is our first call. omaha, nebraska. independent caller. caller: good morning. i'm afraid your guests will not be happy with what i am going to say.

why in the world, unless we to reject the national security, to send a ultimatum toent an the president of the islamic country? he's referring to susan rice recently making a trip to meet with president karzai and talk with him about the importance of finding bilateral security agreement. a couple of things. first of all, i do not believe investor rights did present any ultimatums. the premise of your question is faulty. my own experience working with a number of senior afghanistan officials is that they have no

women inealing with their official capacity. that is based on my own experience working with the minister of interior and defense and so forth. the bottom line is this an agreement is in the national interests of those countries. interest because we do not want them to become a safe haven for al qaeda again. it is an afghan's interest because they understand while they have made tremendous progress building their own -- forces,rtress they still need the help of international community. after 2014,allowed you will see dramatic withdrawal be tough for will

the afghan government to survive. ,> we have timothy on the line independent. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. the truth is this was started by george bush and those guys running the republican congress now. understand why they have to find money to extend unemployment benefits. about $15 trillion and all the stuff that comes with it. it is making no difference. no matter if we stay there or put more troops like mccain said, it don't matter what we do .

its will come out the way will come out, it will come out that way. around and force other nations, no matter how big they are. we tried it in vietnam and we always make the same mistakes. "we need to forget about it and protect ourselves from these terrorists." i'm getting ready to get off, but they have made a war and they made this thing of terror and that is the new way of them to get us to spend all of our money to do these things overseas. we spend more money than the rest of the world put together. our military do. it is ridiculous. thank you. let's hear from our guest. guest: there are two different

questions. the intervention in afghanistan was in direct response to being attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda, finding safeically haven in afghanistan and pakistan at the time. i think what we do now does matter in afghanistan. if the u.s. and the national community can continue to amount ofmodest support going forward, i think the afghans have a chance to secure their own country to prevent al qaeda from coming improve their situation. from, prevent the country becoming a safe haven again for terrorists. the question of the cost of the iraq war, going into a major war

without having a policy to pay for it, without figuring in the tremendous cost of that decision, i think that is something, a set of lessons for the history books, and something we should consider as we craft u.s. policy in the future. host: we talk about afghanistan and iraq but we have a map here about how al qaeda continues to grow and they see it in the middle east. mali, syria,a, iraq, and afghanistan. pakistan, somalia. they point out in the wake of the death of bin laden, affiliates have acted increasingly independently. any thoughts on what you see there on that matt? p? ma hast: the united states

made tremendous progress, but the organization has morphed into these much more independent , still verlyn's regional affiliates in all the countries you mentioned. u.s. strategy needs to place an emphasis on helping to build the capacity of those countries to deal with those groups locally and be effective in trying to limit their growth and access to safe haven and so forth. >> deer park, washington, independent caller. have -- you will not have a good time on the phone today because you talk a lot and say nothing. three points. immediately ban all in contractor theaters, theater contractors. immediately initiate a draft

that covers everybody. toediately issue war taxes pay for this nonsense. you have been playing this game, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, barack obama versus alaska. but your problem is people are waking up to you. the pain level here is getting high enough and the media cannot cover it so you come on and blab for 20 minutes and it is the same noise. what is our mission? will we be everyplace a couple of muslims get into a fist fight? help me out with this one. to know where to begin on that one. i am not in the administration anymore. second of all, i am not advocating u.s. boots on the ground wherever there are disagreements with the islamic community. i am advocating for a very modest continued u.s. presence

in afghanistan, not in a combat role, but to support the afghan national security forces in completing their training so they can stand on their own and secure their country on their own, and so forth. terms of banning contractors, i think we need to do a careful scrub of the appropriate and rules ofiate contractors on the battlefield. we have probably gone too far relying on private security companies and the like as opposed to our military forces. with regard to a draft, i think inis hard to find anyone today's volunteer force that believes going toward the draft at this point would not the superb quality of the all volunteer force. the fact that we have a truly professional force, a force able to deal with a much more comp

today,k of war fighting i agree that we always want to make sure we have a connection to the american people, that the american people support the missions we undertake, but i do not think a draft is the right answer at this point. jeremy, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like the interviewee there to comment on the interesting aspect, the difficulties we have. you made reference to the lessons of history. with cultures that there are. of veracityhe lack in statements they make an statements and contrary actions they have taken.

how do we deal with countries that have not followed through and do what they say they will kind ofcan we have any good faith relationship with any countries like those? i will just take the comments off the air. thank you. you raise an important point. when you negotiate with leaders of a country, you better take the time to understand how they approach negotiation and what cultural perceptions and traditions are, etc.. site think people will across the table and think and can gete way we do, we ourselves into trouble. the good news is, what i have seen is when we have gone into negotiations with other countries, our state department asresentatives have, as far i've seen, done their homework to understand cultural factors. at the end of the day, when we make agreements with countries, there are ensure

verification and accountability measures in place to make sure we can hold him accountable to whatever they do agree to. >> a tweet for our guests. james asked any chance the rebels are using guns acquired from syrian's we are arming? think we cannot be sourcent of where their of weaponry is coming from but what i can say is i think u.s. efforts to arm more moderate rebel groups in syria has come steps ormber of measures to try to ensure those measures do not fall into the wrong hands, the hands of al qaeda. whether that has been 100% i do not think anyone can say. the groups you are seeing pop up in iraq are not the ones we are

supporting and arming in syria. class a couple of headlines. abc news. a bomb kills two in afghanistan. this happened sunday. if you look at the front page of the new york times this morning, you will see the gilded head of a buddhist statue being displayed inside a case at the national museum of afghanistan. they are saving the relics now 300.oyed by the taliban, the taliban have been painstakingly reassembled. waiting for their turn for restoration. piece in the new york times. james is calling from arkansas. independent. good morning.

>> this is a bit off-topic. there is something the american people are not aware of. c-span is never talked about it and i would love for them to have a program about this. it is about blue water sailors and soldiers ann-marie and .tationed offshore denied any disability benefit because they did not have a boot on the graph -- ground. this was passed by congress. i spoke with my senator. i spoke with my congressman. they are both republicans. senator told me something interesting. he said, we are aware of this problem but we cannot afford it. we cannot afford to reimburse these people.

i was sickened. congressman telling me that. my brother was on the uss intrepid, 800 feet offshore. he died of prostate cancer. the doctor recognized and stated in his military medical records that he died of that. because he did not have a boot on the ground, he was denied his disability. this is atrocious. that areabout veterans forgotten. these veterans are forgotten. please do a program about this atrocity that the government had put on the veterans. host: thank you for calling. james, thank you

for your service. i do not know the particulars of your brother's case but i do yearshe v.a. in recent has actually opened up access for victims for veterans who experience gulf war syndrome and so forth, liberalizing their access policies, which is part of what has created some of the i think opening up the access is absolutely the i would hopeand you continue to press your case. if we can go back to one other cited abouteadline the taliban bombings. it is true these bombings continue to take place but if you look at their scale and scope, while any civilian loss is a tragedy, they tend to be

very limited. that is because the afghan security forces have actually made sufficient gains that the taliban is no longer taking a lot of territory. they are no longer winning battles in rural areas. these small one off individual suicide bomber tactics, which, i think, is actually a sign of the challenges they are facing in -- tog any momentum regaining any momentum in their insurgency. >> a tweet -- why did you leave the administration? trade theould not experience of working for president obama for the world. kids who ithree wanted to have them recognize me when i walk through the door. two of them are about to leave for college and this is a very

precious time to have a little bit more time with my family. part of thecond tweet is what do you think of obert gates? we had a click just this morning when asked about the afghanistan surge. here is what he had to say. [visdeo clip] >> the decisions were right and i believe he believed it would work. presidentit parallels .ush in 2006 when he began deal -- idearall of the book coming out and the secretary at the >> the book has not been available to anybody it journalist yet here it have not had the chance to read the final version in its entirety.

i do not want to say much on that. but i think what you heard from the secretary now is that i think, what was interesting to me serving the president obama and secretary gates is, more often than not, they agreed on policy, particularly in the case and thenistan strategy way forward. host: it defends the looks critique of the president. he was on sunday morning yesterday and spoke about it. he defended the criticism of the president's handling of the afghanistan were. think waiting not to weigh in made any sense. " moving on to elizabeth in maryland. caller: good morning. host: you are calling on the republican line. caller: thank you for your

service. i wish we had more women of your and your caliber so thank you so much. is what i wanted to know that early on, i was able to take peopleey would about 20 minutes and let them see some of the hearings of the attacks on 9/11. i have tried to keep up with it through the years because i am not hard over either way. i think everybody is trying to do the right thing, frankly. wondering, when the usa was put up on the screen and you saw the activity and the different countries that had the al qaeda presence in them, i keep going back to the funding. who is encouraging and funding

and promoting, you know, the network? that was what some of the hearings we were able to attend as the former cia director, had described it. he said it was kind of like a spider web. with all of the war activity and the huge amount of years that have gone on, could you give into a little bit more of why these people seem to be playing both sides of the fence? it seems like they go in, and then, we have to go in and mow them down. could you tell me about where we handle on whong a is funding them and how we can go about lessening that affect the echo -- that affect? -- effect?

i think since 9/11, we have paid a lot more attention to the funding sources for al qaeda and its affiliates. it has elevated the role of the treasury department they established a whole new office to pursue terrorist financing and try to figure out how we disrupt that. the truth is a lot of the terrorist groups are networked with other kinds of organized crime, networks that use drug money and money laundering, all kinds of illicit activities, to fund their terrorism efforts. think hasthing i received increased attention. it is a huge part of our diplomatic efforts. fundingfind a source of coming from the gulf war europe or another region of the world, we integrate that issue into our

bilateral relations and really to the extent governments have impact, try to press them to change their laws or behavior, to try to stamp out that funding. >> larry on twitter wants a bit of a history lesson from our guest. he writes, what was the reason for the surge in afghanistan initially echo what did it accomplish? why was there a surrender date at the start? guest: when obama came into office, he conducted a major afghanistan review. where were we, how is it going, and what was needed? washat time, what we found the taliban led insurgency, they have the momentum. they were gaining ground and territory in gaining influence. not.re in addition, you had elections

upcoming at that point here the weresment was the afghans not in a position to secure the elections by themselves and that we did not have enough troops on to really ensure their success. to search was put into place try to put the forces into place that could reverse the momentum of the campaign of the taliban, give us the initiative, create breathing space to build the afghan national security forces so they could step into the lead, and really secure the country, and to allow space for elections and improved governance to occur. setting a date was part of an to assure the afghan leadership and afghan people that this was not going to be an indefinite occupation. we were not there to occupy the country, which has obviously been a very sore point for

afghans. it was also to ensure we did not feed a growing culture of dependency on the u.s. and the international community. we had this window and then it would be up to them to take the lead on their own future. that was the rationale coupled with the date. a couple of calls waiting. we want to get to your reaction to the headlines on iran. it says it will scale back its nuclear program next week, january 20. what do you make of the progress of the negotiation? guest: i think the interim agreement is important. ron's -- it halts iran posses activity molly work in more permanent agreement. it is important.

-- it halts iran's activity. it is important. the other thing that matters is the final agreement, making sure we put more time on the clock, that we ensure we have a situation where iran cannot -- sh to a new -- host: independent caller. i want to put the movements in the middle east in a broader context. in the last three years, we had to turning, movement the authoritarian regime on their head. and build states modeled after region.nd the we are looking at that as a

model to pay off debts and a driving economy. the enemies of this movement, the saudi's and israelis and all these others, are using the al qaeda threat because it is a threat to them for these countries to liberate from the authoritarian regimes. it is a threat to them to develop and have economies and become manufacturing centers. they are pushing their intelligence agencies and they are funding these extremist groups, to defame this movement. the iraqis, in one year, were peaceful protests. to have malik he just give a little bit of their civil rights, and they refused and now, he is using this excuse that this -- there is an al qaeda to go in and basically detain this peaceful movement

that has been happening for one this toiraq. uses label, ready to stick on anybody asking for authoritarian regimes to be removed. host: thank you for calling. guest: i agree with your general for the arab spring movements seeking greater but i disagreets with your assessment of the al qaeda threat. andink al qaeda in syria now in iraq is actually real. groups theany of the united states and the gulf states are funding in syria are islamistsate, even if rebel groups actually fighting al qaeda in syria -- we just

last week read a great deal in theattles happening region. i disagree with your assessment but i think you raise an important point about the prospects of the arab spring , in light of challenging circumstances now. carol, a democrat. caller: what i was calling to say was, if our member correctly when this all started, taliban and al qaeda were not the same ring. now we say "the threat of the taliban in afghanistan." that is not the same as al qaeda. even though the taliban is more like a shia ruled thing, they are still not al qaeda and they wereo problem when they there. what is going on? i do not

understand why we keep saying thtaliban is so terrible. but thehey are distinct leader of the taliban, omar, is the religious leader to whom most al qaeda senior leadership -- leadership has sworn loyalty. there is a strong connection. when taliban were governing in afghanistan, they provided safe qaeda on their soil. there is an interconnection between the two groups, even though they are separate and distinct. is, one of the primary sources of funding for the taliban today is the illicit drug trade in afghanistan. whatever their policies might of been when they were rolling afghanistan, they are benefiting from the growth of poppies and the drug trade in afghanistan today. john in new jersey,

democrat, welcome. this is not bush buses were or obama posses were. it is america posses were. we need to be more unified in that. that is really all i had to say. it is america posses were. war.merica's guest: i agree. afghanistan has been an effort that enjoyed a lot of bipartisan support and i would hope that would continue going forward. to achieving the core objective of ensuring it is not put back into being a safe haven for al qaeda with modest continued commitment. , we justable afghans have to stay the force. our guest, formerly the defense undersecretary of policy for the obama administration

from 2009 2 2012. thank you for your in a. -- insight. we will take a brief timeout and then talk about health care, special -- specifically about the affordable care act impact on the cost of health care overall in the country. later, in our segment about your money, how your taxpayer dollars are being spent on the federal public defender program. in the meantime, news from c- span radio. >> more international news. the russian foreign minister met with john kerry in paris. the men talking about the situation in syria. the minister said syria posses government is considering opening humanitarian access in the run-up to a peace conference together theing

opposition and leadership for the first time. meanwhile, the un's chief will discuss a number of regional issues, especially the crisis in syria, during his visit to iraq. he arrived today as an unprecedented standoff is a way -- underweight between troops and al qaeda militants. israeli officials and international dignitaries bid together the opposition and leadership for the first time. ceremonyat a state earlier, remembering the former prime minister as a fearless warrior and bold leader. joe biden and the former british prime minister headed a long list of visitors who attended the ceremony which took place outside israel posses parliament building. will beday, his body buried at his farm in southern israel. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to life it in the god gave us.and make it count. drug and alphao -- and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady, nancy reagan, in our original series as it returns tonight live at 9:00 and c-spang and on c-span

three and c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. our guest is here to talk about health care spending and health care costs. good morning and thank you for joining us. there are trends out there we wanted to talk about. health care spending went down as a percentage of the u.s. economy. can you explain why and what is going on with health care costs? guest: it seems there has been a moderation or easing of increases in health care costs. it is still about 17 and 18% of the economy. but it is just not rising as fast as it used to. it is rising more or less in line with the overall growth of the economy, which, if you think still a lot of

money the u.s. spends for health, but it becomes more affordable when that bill is rising more or less in line with the growth of the economy as opposed to galloping ahead. host: we always read about health care going through the roof. what are the controlling factors to a steady increase at a steady rowth rate? is a big debate going on about that. a lot of people think it is spillover or hangover effect from the economic recession. that it just took so much out of us and the country people have just been reluctant to spend on anything, even health care. others are saying, the recession has long been over, and some of this has got to be a tribute it

to the focus on controlling health care costs and reducing health care costs that you see from employers and the government also. i want to invite the viewers to phone in with their questions and comments for our guest. if you are uninsured, call this number -- we have plenty of time for calls that we want to dig into the numbers a little bit more with our guest. from the cms report that came out, here are some of the details. u.s. health-care spending in 2012, the growth rate was 3.7%. expenditures about $2.8 trillion. the average cost for debt per person was 8000, 900, and $15.

$15 -- $8,915. people say, i do not spend that much or not that much was spent on the last year. what happens is most of the spending is for a small proportion of us who wind up getting really sick every year. average, it that really does not give you a picture of how health care spending works. most of the cost go for the sickest people in any year. the percentage rate, the growth, was slower than the growth of the economy. actually, health-care costs as a share of the overall pie shrank a little bit last year. that is unusual. there is another slide i

want to point out because it illustrates what we are talking about with health care costs. 2012 down a little bit from 2010, down from 4.7% in 2008, and then back in 2002, 9.7, the highest growth rate in health care. can you give us more of a history lesson in what these trends are all about and what else might be causing them? go back to 2012 if you could first. why almost 10%? guest: way back then. looknow, you have got to in terms of the economy and also, you have to look at what is coming online in terms of new ,rugs, new types of treatments and it is a complicated picture. boiled down to one or

two simple factors. certainly, the economy plays a big part in it. is spendingdriver on drugs, spending on new medical procedures, things of that nature. let's flood the affordable care act into all of this, and the slowing of the rise of the health-care cost. the president filed this report. tell us more about why he is saying that? what is his rationale? guest: the experts say the affordable care act has had a minimal impact on these trends theit is think of it,

affordable care act itself, major parts of it, are just starting to roll out now. the big coverage expansion is this year. some of the sharper cost control measures are still in the future, although medicare cuts have started. the administration and supporters of the president say it is an overall tone they have ,et, that is driving the system driving doctors, hospitals, insurers, to look for greater efficiency in the system. host: the first call for our guest is from david, cincinnati. the line for uninsured. tell us your situation. caller: i would proposed a tort reform. keep and award damages according to the cost of the health care and the loss of income. i would also like to have the government go after trial lawyers and have them pay back the excess amount.

pay back the excess amount of money awarded for years. host: thanks and let me jump in. you are insured? caller: i get my health care from the ministration. -- the administration. the tort reform, that is an area where it seemed like it might be possible under obama to find some kind of common ground between republicans and democrats, because he was open to the idea of looking at malpractice laws. it is something that never came about. it never came to fruition. instead, what was done in the affordable care act was to invest in some pilot programs that would look at different ways to handle malpractice

cases, to keep out of courts. the congressional budget office found there would be savings as , result of malpractice reforms so, this is an area that will probably be revisited at some let'sdown the road. >> hear from doug on the line for uninsured in utah. i am calling regarding your statement that health-care costs have dropped. my question is, i believe the reason why they're coming up with that cystic that health care has dropped is because they have cap to the economy snuffed down to the point people do not have jobs and cannot afford health care and even if they do have health care, they cannot afford to go to the doctor because they do not have jobs to pay for any of it. therefore, but not propping the economy up, they are able to say

health care costs have gone down when they really have not. it is because no one has the money to even go to the doctor because there are no jobs to pay for it. on the line if you can. i want to follow-up. go ahead for our guest. guest: they have not gone down. the government is not saying the costs have gone down. they are still rising. the change is that they are not rising as fast as they used to. they are going up more or less in line with the overall economy. what economists say is that it makes it more affordable, as a nation, to cover our health care expenses. as to your rationale, your explanation, a lot of people believe that is what is going on. slowdown -- it is not a reduction, but a slowdown -- in health care costs, is the result

effects of the economic recession. people out of work and people afraid of losing jobs, etc.. what you are expressing is one of the major explanations experts out there offer. you are calling on the line for uninsured. are you working right now? off.r: no, i got laid at my company, i have been there almost a year but not quite. it took me six months from the day i was in -- i was hired to get insured. once i got a job, it took me six months to get it. then i was eligible. i had insurance for one month. they laid me off. their policy is if you are off work for more than 31 days, then, when you return to work,

if you are not back within the 31 days, you have to wait another six more months before you are eligible for their employer paid insurance. anything about his story you want to speak to? guest: if you are still on the line, have you checked out any of the coverage now being the affordable care act and what do you think about it if you had done that yet though -- that? host: i think he is gone. good morning, james. good morning. i have tried for years. host: what would you like to ask guest?

caller: i want to make a statement. let me lower my tv where i cannot hear it. i want to make a statement. let me lower my tv where i cannot hear it. host: this will work a lot better to all if you turn the sound down. diagnosed, with a vicious disease. if you google it, it will come up. here is the deal. took the report and destroyed it and tried to say that one day i woke up and started kicking. i have medicare now. i've already had my second year operation. the doctor should have done an mri before i went and did the surgery. the memorial hospital here in

now, it was a couple years ago, 49. my medicalad records. i wait three or four days and then go pick them up. he asked me to touch his hand. well, on this disease i've mentioned, i cannot pronounce it. i/s. are a lot of l/s and cartilage infection -- host: is there anything you want to ask our guest on that? caller: an mri of my neck and my neck.

i had to come up with a co-pay. let me let you go there. you had a lot of time. guest: anything there you wanted to speak to? host: anything there you wanted to speanything there you wantedo speak to? guest: it sounds like you are in a difficult situation. i would call the one 800 medicare number. in most states, there are counseling services for medicare and fisheries. i would try to find out where

those are and reach out to them and see if there's anybody who can give you some ideas as far as dealing with out-of-pocket cost, and just say, hang in there, sir. host: a tweet to our guest. is there a difference between cost and price -- can you explain what he is trying to get at? sure: i am not exactly what he is trying to get at is there is a difference. there has been a lot of attention recently to the list publish fortals their services and the role inse list prices play driving the overall health care spending. the list prices, however, are what medicare pays or what

medicaid pays. according to the law, they are no longer supposed to be charged to the uninsured if you are a not-for-profit hospital. the list price is the one element, but i am not sure they would be the underlying driver of our health care spending. minutes have about 25 left with our guest. he wrote this piece recently, the headline of which says -- "skimpy health care law plans leave some uninsured. care guest: best story doubled research that shows if you have a serious chronic service, something that acquires intensive treatment and costly jobs to manage, and you are a

person of modest economic means, that you have to be really careful what kind of health insurance you pick under the affordable care act, because, it to out-ave you exposed of-pocket costs, copayments and deductibles, that would amount to 20% of your income or something like that. it is not that you would be uninsured any longer, but you would be underinsured. maybe that is something we will start hearing more about as the new program takes effect in the country and people start using it. there has been concern about that from the american cancer society and cancer action network, and from the lymphoma society, as well. let's go to georgia, where mark has been waiting on the line for folks who are uninsured. explain your situation first, if you could. caller: it is not much of a

situation. i am fairly young and certainly healthy. i have not needed insurance. i'm only 31. at this particular point in my life, i have not become mortally wounded or ill. did you check out the affordable care act at all? caller: as of two days ago, i have become employed. prior to that, i have been technically unemployed. i have checked it out. it would take a very long time to explain the situation, but suffice it to say, i was a living and serving chore for the previous 10 years. >> go-ahead for our guest. >> there is something that bugs me.

sense to haveke insurance for everyone and call it affordable health care, when it does not do anything to address why health care is unaffordable to begin with. is, does your guest actually know why health care is unaffordable? tweet, ae had a similar basic question. guest: i do not claim to know the answer to it. if you listen to the experts and is that it is you a combination of factors. a rich country. rich countries tend to spend more on health care. we spend much more than other rich countries.

we are a society that believes in technology. we want the latest high-tech seizures. we want the latest drugs. society, soigious get ripped -- not if others turn out wrong, we get blamed. there is a whole combination of factors that come together to drive it. also, the way that doctors and hospitals are paid, traditionally, it has been piecemeal. you get paid on the basis of how much work you do, not the final outcome. is thathappening now employers and the government are starting to shift the payment system away from piecemeal. how many tests, how many

manydures, two, how patients come out and how well did you, the doctor, the hospital, do certain basic things that are intended to keep the patient as healthy as possible? we have a combination of factors that drive these costs. nobody thought the affordable care act was the last word on this. maybe a year or two ago, a number of people who served in the obama administration came out with recommendations for another round of legislation that would focus more closely on detaining costs. it will be an ongoing problem for our country, and particularly as more people enter retirement and join medicare. host: we have william on the .ine from texas he is in short.

-- insured. do you get your insurance from your employer? caller: caller:yes, i get medicare. i am 84. i was wondering if you can make a judgment about what part of the total health costs is a result of medicare to those eligible for it? i would have to look that up for you but it is a significant part of our overall health care spending. tippercentage is not at the of my tongue right now and i would hate to give you the wrong answer. you it is a significant portion of overall aslth care spending because we get older, we are more likely to get sick. therefore, it is a high-cost population. is somethinghere

else you would like to ask? host: why do you bring it up and why do you asked the question? factr: it seems to me the some of us in the older ages are by the federal health program, that that has to be considered as a major part of the cost to the government. and that we are adding another one now with the affordable care act and it seems to me this is going to be a chime in this cover thisoney to particular population. host: thank you for calling. guest: the gentleman is right that it is a lot of money. by the same token, it is

basically a decision our country to cover seniors and the disabled through medicare. an interesting point about medicare is that if you look at enrollee, that is actually staying pretty manageable. enrolleen the cost per is staying on the manageable side is the influx of younger baby boomers entering the program. when you just look at medicare for the next few years, at least until those rumors start getting really much older, it is actually going to on a per capita basis so to speak by the influx of the baby boomers. money, health jobs are actually going down as well.

it posted losses for the first time in a decade. they pointed out jobs last year went down 3700. 20 400 at hospitals, 12 hundred at physicians offices. what do you think is at work there? that is interesting. it has been a source of job growth year end and year out through some of the roughest times of the economy. something you should probably watch for a couple of years and see whether it turns into some kind of long- term trend or not. it is probably too early to say on the basis of one year. host: what do you make of all of the talk of the affordable care act? .t is costing people a lot i think it is something

that we will see play out this year. the affordable care act has two arms. the expansion of medicaid is going to cost the beneficiary hardly anything, because medicaid is a safety net program for low-income people. the other part is geared towards the middle class, which you can buy to the marketplaces. it depends on what kind of plan you pick. depends on your own personal health care circumstances and your income. so, it will probably be at least one year before we start to get a clear picture of whether people think the coverage is affordable or not. anecdotally, you hear both opinions expressed in now. host: elaine is calling on the

uninsured line. caller: good morning. host: what is your situation? you do not have insurance, what is your story? caller: my son is 26 and was diagnosed with heart failure. school but he had to quit because you really sick. we tried the obamacare. he cannot afford 120 five dollars per month, he is not working. they said that he is too young. therewondering, is something in the plans for people that fall into that crack? where you do not make enough for the health care, but you are not low enough to get medicaid? you have to admit -- at least make $11,000 per year. guest: ok. host: thank you.

cannot afford the contribution. guest: with medicated is important to keep in mind that it is a state option. where was she from? georgia, right? yes, georgia. if that is the case, that is one of the states that has not decided to expand medicaid at the moment. so, that is another wrinkle in all of this. 25 states and the district of columbia have decided to expand medicaid. the other 25 have not. so, if you are a low income cannotand you really afford the private coverage being offered in the exchanges , maybe you would qualify for medicaid if the state had expanded it, but if

you cannot afford the coverage ,eing offered in the exchanges there are few options, basically, for you. although the government have said that people who fall into that category and fall through that crack will not face a tax penalty for remaining uninsured. has been working for the ap since 2008. ricardo alonso-zaldivar is the health correspondent at the ap and has previously worked for the l.a. times and "the miami herald." he has covered a variety of washington beats. by twitter -- host: joanna, calling from ballwin, missouri, independent line. caller: hi.

for starters, i would like to comment on the cost of health care and the fact that there is no doubt that the numbers in obamacare, the affordable care act, as you would like to call it, do not decrease the cost of health insurance. i have been health insurance agent for 20 years. i would also like to comment on the fact that -- yes, you are right, there is a huge administrative cost problem on the insurance side and on the hospital side. as well as the fact that i think that -- i do not know where this magical money tree that you have for paying for all this medicated you have been creating is coming from, you did not offset it on the other side and we are a country that is already in an extraordinary amount of debt. just a dream it up. who is going to pay for the medicaid? other than, of course, us who go

out and take risks and start businesses and create jobs? if it falls down, i can guarantee you that none of you want to compensate us, but when we succeed and are good at business and make good choices and get all this money, you want us to give it to everyone else because you did not want to take any responsibility for creating the problem. i think that you do not want to grow, you want to spoon feed, but the problem in the end is that you have baby boomers coming. you know that medicare is not solvent and has not been solvent. none of this has been solved. the numbers in the affordable care act are determined, at best, at this point, to crash. out in the it wash end. when you tell someone -- i want you to give me $1800 per year $10,000, note of

only did you give them money every month, but when you were with the dr. you had to pay as well. and they did not have that before. before they saw their cost probably less than 18 hundred dollars per year altogether in those so-called junk plans. host: that was joanna. hear from our guest. right, joanna. if you provide health insurance to more people, more people are going to go to the doctor, more people are going to be able -- be able to access the system, costs are going to go up. i do not think that anyone said costs would go down. they are going to go up. , can theuestion is united states afford the increase in cost. that is going to be hotly debated over the next few years. the degree to which cost go up is going to be closely watched. the legislation

itself, the way that it was written, there were tax increases and spending cuts in government health care programs designed to pay for the legislation itself going to the first 10 years and beyond. so far, what we have heard from the congressional budget office is that the legislation continues to pay for itself. the spending cuts and tax increases would continue to pay for the coverage expansion. now, there are a lot of questions about that. suppose that some of these pay for's, as they call them, get rolled back. then the coverage expansion becomes more unaffordable. i think it is something that will be closely watched for the next few years, to see what the end result will be. we have time for a couple of more calls with our guest. congress took of health care again last week. anything else on their docket that you would like to tell us

about? we know they have taken dozens of related votes. i think one of: the stories that is not getting , which isttention very interesting on health care and congress, is that congress is actually looking for a bipartisan way to change the way the government days doctors through medicare. ?ew no medicare reimbursement for doctors has been a problem every year because there is a law on the books that would require big cuts and every year they have to cobble together a patch to get around that. well, you have now in the house and in the senate legislation to change the payment system. the idea is to change the payment system to focus more on quality. the headlines are about the continuing clash on ,he affordable care act

obamacare, whatever you want to call it, there is actually something else going on behind the scenes on medicare that is quite interesting. one viewer, via twitter -- just the opinion of one viewer, there. lawrenceville, georgia. i was listening to you guys earlier. i picked up something over the weekend that was a panel discussing health care cost in general. the observation was made several times that any additional affordability of health care that has come about in the last theyears is consistent with fact that the economy has taken a pretty hard it, beginning in 2008, 2009.

reducing increases do not make it necessarily more affordable. an example that is not necessarily anecdotal, i went on the website and i put in a hypothetical two people, 62 years old, making a total family income of $100,000. they were not entitled the subsidies on as they would expect, but the bronze plan was $13,000 per year. i did not dig into it to see the deductibles or co-pays, but $1100 a month is not chump change for insurance. of premium isind going to be the downfall of the program. thank you. thank you for that example. it is on the side of the scale where you would not see a subsidy and it is on the older side of the age scale with the

cost of the coverage being greater. what you are pointing out is something that is going to be a topic of conversation across the country this year. i think we are going to see consumers deliver a verdict, sooner or later, on whether they think this is affordable to them . for their budgets. kind ofthat i always thought, in the back of my head, was that this coverage is not free if you are a middle class person. you know, it really does depend on your circumstances. it is kind of less than the mortgage but more than a car note. it is something that people will have to factor into their budgets. it will be a real consideration. host: on the in shoreline, hampton, virginia, roy, go ahead. line, virginia, hampton, roy, go ahead. caller: please extend lane this

explainof the -- please this section of the aca to me. the risk record or to ensure that we do not move -- lose money. i will listen off-line. host: why are you so interested in that one? caller: i read an editorial on it and i was interested. i have never heard it mentioned before. host: something you can speak to? a general way. it is a very complicated provision, but there are a couple of provisions in that law that are designed to ease the transition for insurance companies. that they would do that is they would move money around to insurance companies that sort get the short end of the stick and wind up with a lot of costly cases.

the risk corridor is one of them. there is another one that is called reinsurance that would ofer a certain proportion the cost of the very, very expensive cases. what the caller has pointed out, you know, it is one of the more complicated parts of the law. something that we will probably start hearing about next year, really. the degree to which it works. basically, it is financial safeguards built into the law to cushion the impact on insurers of drawing too many high-cost cases for a very sick population. host: our last call comes on the uninsured line, sailors will, kentucky. go ahead, johnny. question has to do the subsidies and low income.

let's say that you get a subsidy what aboutyment, but your out-of-pocket costs and the duck bubbles? that you have a $1500 deductible and and how to pack -- out-of-pocket cost, does the government help with that? in kentucky they expanded medicaid and right now people can make the minimum wage and still qualify, but if they raise the minimum wage up, people will lose the medicaid. host: two different points there. guest: two very interesting points. thank you, caller. on the subsidies for the out-of- pocket costs, you have to look at your own particular situation . yes, in some cases if you are a person of modest income and you get a silver plan, you can subsidies for your out-of-pocket costs as well.

there is a quick way to backximate those, making a of the envelope calculation, a handy tool on the internet called kaiser health reform subsidy calculator. you can go there and there is some very basic stuff about your youlies situation, and then get an answer. i believe that you can now do that on healthcare.gov as well. i hope i have helped you with that answer. host: thank you to our guest, ricardo alonso-zaldivar, the associated press. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. one more short timeout, then we will talk about your money. specifically the public defender program. how much is being spent there? what are the recent trends? our guest will be michael nachmanoff, federal public defender at the eastern district of virginia. time for your calls, of course.

in the meantime, news from c- span radio . the fifth straight day in west virginia, residents of a small town are brushing their teeth and cooking with bottled water as tests continue for nine counties. residents have not the and given the go-ahead to use the water again. water use was banned when a chemical used in processing got into the water. an update on chris christie. federal auditors are investigating whether 25 million dollars in sandy relief funds for amproperly used marketing campaign featuring the governor and his family promoting tourism for the state as he was gearing up for his reelection in 2013. colón, the 27 year house veteran and vocal chris christie critic, says that the inspector

general of the department of housing and urban development, at his request, has conducted a review of the spending and says that there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale investigation into the state's use of the federal funds. ian weil, "the north star ledger," reports that former aides are facing subpoenas. they want to speak to bridget and kelly about why lanes were ,losed in fort lee, new jersey creating four days of traffic jams at the george washington bridge. the associated press reports that the president's power to temporarily fill high-level positions will be the subject of oral arguments today. the case involves the temporary appointments to the national labor relations board and consumer financial protection bureau during a senate recess. he did this after senate republicans refused to allow

votes on the nominees. three federal appeal courts said the president overstepped his authority. you can hear the oral argument here on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. case, as i see it, is one of the bigger court cases that could potentially transform the communications sector. michael powell, former chairman of the sec, a couple of years ago he said that the biggest thing that is going to change this date is the case -- change the state is this case. we will see, potentially, the supreme court take us up and find out, one way or the other, if this service is legal under copyright law. year willey do this be determined by a brand-new and dynamic chairman named tom wheeler. he is not afraid to come out swinging.

of theuld say one biggest issues on the hill right now for technology is surveillance reform. this will keep coming. the leaks will keep coming, we have been told. by the end of january president obama will dress the review group recommendations. some of the recommendations are likely to be accepted by the white house, but others are getting more contentious, laying out exactly where the white house stands in these issues. >> technology and telecommunications issues facing washington this year, tonight on "the communicators," at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on mondays we talk about your money. particularly today we are talking about free legal counsel for federal cases. our guest to explain the federal public defender program is the

federal public defender for the eastern district of virginia. thank you for being with us. like my pleasure. good morning. >> --host: what is the federal public defender program? guest: part of a program that provides representation to people charged with crimes in federal court. it is part of the criminal justice act that arose in 1964, following the supreme court's decision in gideon versus and counselstatus for people they could not afford representation when charged with the rhyme. as a result, congress passed statutes to try to make sure there would be the opportunity for people to have lawyers. that is a two-part system. one is the federal public defender system, in which employers of the government represent indigent defendants in an institutional function. the other is criminal justice act lawyers in private practice

who are paying a relatively represente to indigent clients. those things together allow people who do not have enough money to hire their own lawyer to be represented in federal court. host: we mentioned this figure of about $1 billion. from what heart of the federal government does it come from? how does it get disbursed? sounds like ahat lot of money, it is literally a drop in the bucket of the entire federal budget. the entire judiciary, which is what we are a part of, the third branch of government, is point two of one percent of the entire budget. a total budget of about $7 billion. indigent defense counsel for about $1 billion of that amount. this is an infant has moral amount in the grand scheme of things. money goes to pay for federal defender organizations and lawyers in private practice. host: there were a spate of

stories that have been happening over the last couple of months, one of them in "the new york times." public defenders tightening their belts because of steep budget cuts. what is going on? guest: that is right. some tension has been brought to this issue. over the last nine months, like other parts of the federal government, federal defenders have suffered tremendously as a result of the sequester. defenders have suffered in particular, because the cuts they had to absorb cannot be absorbed in any way other than personnel. unlike other agencies that might have programs or weapons systems, for federal defenders it is just people. we go into court and we represent people in court and there is nothing else to cut. a, when we were faced with $52 million cut to our budget six months into the year, federal defenders had to manage

that and stay loyal to their clients, because as lawyers we have ethical duties to not simply abandon our clients. many defenders were faced with furloughs around the country. some offices faced as many as 20 days of furloughs, losing up to one month of salary. in my office, the eastern district of virginia, we faced the loss of an entire paycheck, every employee. that was not because of a problem managing the money. it was because we had no other way to absorb the cost. we have investigators, paralegals, lawyers. every day we go to jails, courts, we traveled to investigate cases. we did not have extra programs to cut. >> phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guest. the federal public defender for the eastern district of virginia, michael nachmanoff, he just explained how his own office was affected by the sequester.

calls, explaino -- this is a big country out there, why is this so important? why should our viewers know about this? >> absolutely. the federal public defender system is really part of one of the most important parts of our government. is a constitutional mandate. a part of the government the congress created by choice. they thought it was a good policy decision. when the government this guides to prosecute someone and potentially take away their liberty, the constitution requires that they be represented by counsel. not a choice.s is the government must provide funding for this. the question is if they will continue to provide adequate funding for federal defenders and criminal justice act lawyers to do their job effectively in terms of quality of representation and cost- effectively. one of the ironies of the sequester is that costs have

increased. federal defenders do nothing but appear in federal court. they have a lot of institutional expertise. in virginia, in my district, many lawyers have clearances because the cases involve classified information. when federal defenders are cut, those defendants will still get lawyers. the constitution requires it. to payernment will have lawyers in private practice, many of whom are competent, but when you pay by the hour as opposed to the institutional defense function, you spend more money. ultimately whether you are in favor or against us, cutting this particular program has increased cost to the taxpayer. it makes no sense, from a political perspective, from a values perspective. this is about that rock fundamental principles. we believe in equal access to justice. we believe that regardless of your circumstances, when charged with a crime you have a right to

have your other rights protected. this is not adequately funded, none of the other rights matter. ohio, for michael nachmanoff. caller: what percentage of the cases are noncapital cases? for drug use, drug offenses. how do you get a defendant to follow up on the claim that they were inadequately represented by a public defender? good guest: --guest: questions. in terms of the total numbers, i do not know if i have that information, but in the federal drug prosecutions are substantial. traditionally they have been the largest category of crimes that were charged in federal court until the past year, when immigration offenses overtook drug crimes. for the first time, we have seen narcotics and drug crimes displaced by the volume of immigration offenses being

prosecuted. the is primarily a on southwest border. the number of capital prosecutions are very small. the federal government prosecutes a wide range of offenses. over the past 20 years or 30 years those offenses have expanded dramatically as congress has passed increasing numbers of criminal offenses that have given jurisdiction over criminal offenses in federal court. traditionally, the states prosecute crimes. still today, the states handle a far, far larger number than the federal government. as federal defenders we handle about 200,000, a little over 200,000 cases per year, and that is 90% of all the cases. 90% of people charged in federal court wind up with court appointed counsel, either a federal defender or a lawyer in private practice.

times, after people are convicted, after a plea or a trial -- the caller made reference to ineffective assistance of counsel. sometimes defendants feel that they want to collaterally attack their conviction. they can bring those claims. those are hard claims to make. the law is very difficult in that area, because courts believe in finality. if a person has gone through the trial and appellate process, the mechanisms for proofing ineffective but -- ineffective assistance of counsel is tandem -- as being can't amount to not having a lawyer at all, those are difficult lames approved. but sometimes there is merit to them. the court can, but is not required, to appoint counsel in those situations. host: you're the federal public defender for the eastern district of virginia. you have a private law firm that does this. how come? guest: i did.

i had a wonderful time in private practice after clerking for a federal judge. i had a wonderful experience in both places, but i always wanted to do public service. there really was no better way, in my mind, to do that, then to help people in the most vulnerable positions. people potentially being separated from their families. people charged with very serious crimes. sometimes alienated from their own families or society, they needed an advocate to stick up for them. it was appealing to me to have the opportunity to do something that i felt was meaningful. it is also one of those last areas of law where you can really get into court. just as with federal prosecutors, federal public defender jobs are much sought after, because you really get the opportunity to be in court and be a real trial lawyer. king steve is calling from george, virginia.

caller: good morning. my son is in federal prison for an analog drug charge. i would like to know -- he is trying to do his own appeal now, the first one to his attorney failed. if there is anyone who can help them with that? the first person ever convicted of an analog charge like this, for bath powder. guest: i am sorry to hear that. i wish him all the best. it is difficult for me to know, exactly, procedurally, what is going on with this case. the analog drug cases are relatively new. at least ones involving bath salts and other types of synthetic drugs or new drugs that have not arisen before. lawyershat his prior preserved any issues that there might be. know, i would recommend

speaking to his private lawyers to see what his avenues of re- just might be. it is difficult for me to say what help he could get at this point. republicangan, caller, natasha. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. host: morning. ,aller: mr. michael nachmanoff i applaud you for your services. so many people neglect the poor. it seems like these millionaire congresspeople that we have, they neglect the poor completely. they are so busy taking their four-day vacations, it is absolutely appalling. the neglect of the poor in this country, the poor and the people who do not have adequate employment. republican, i am absolutely toensed at what is happening the poor people who have lost their unemployment while these

175 thousand dollar per year people have a four-day work week . c-span, i wish you would do a program on the fringe benefits that these people get. it is just appalling. this is not a country of the people, by the people, for the people. it is for the rich. i, myself, am -- i am a person of means. feelsam a person who sorry for those who are not as fortunate as i am and i applaud you for leaving the job that you did in trying to help the poor in this country, they surely need it. host: thanks for calling into our guest, michael nachmanoff. what types of cases are we talking about? guest: we represent the widest

array of crimes that you can imagine. in the eastern district of virginia, where i practice, that is particularly true. across the river we have a lot of federal a -- federal agencies , like the pentagon, the cia, and other federal agencies. have seen a lot of very high- profile national security cases, cases involving allocation -- allegations of terror and espionage. district also extends to the tidewater area. those cases also attract. they are very interesting and unusual. people accused of piracy from somalia, including capital cases from that area, because they have been flown in to face prosecution. we represented the alleged 20th hijacker just after 9/11, right after the office was opened. , and federal defenders

across the country have frequently gone to the supreme court. because we represent so many of supreme court,n these issues often arise and allow for federal defenders to litigate in the highest court. in the eastern district of virginia, we have been there four times in the last 10 years, which is a bit like hitting the lottery 10 times. [indiscernible] federal--host: can a defender turned down a case? how does it work? guest: excellent question. where i practice we have the stored league except in every case that the court has asked us to take. it is important that our lawyers, some of the best in the most seriouse the cases possible, but we cannot take cases where there is a conflict. the federal government often uses conspiracy laws to charge defendants.

in any case involving more than one defendant where there are co-conspirators, federal defenders can only represent one of those defendants. therefore the others would be represented by lawyers in private practice under the criminal justice act. in other parts of the country, almost always take the majority of cases, but some are able to decline cases if, for example, the caseload is too heavy or if they are burdened with an extremely large or resource intensive case. during the last fiscal year, for the first time in our 12 year a small i declined number of cases that i perceived would be really resource and staffing intensive. i felt that it would be inappropriate for us to take on cases that we cannot afford to devote the time and resources to . now that we are in the new fiscal year, we are certainly back to our old practice. but this is the problem with

inadequate funding. it essentially can wear down the system, delay cases, and cause them away inturn favor of an alternative that will wind up taking more time and costing more money. host: the phony, georgia, on the line with an independent caller. hello, there. caller: good morning, how are you guys doing? guest: fine. my question is, the disproportionate number of black men in jail right now, there is a negative stigma on public defenders. you say that you need more money, but why? when your program has failed these men. you keep an account of success cases as opposed to unsuccessful cases? do you have a number on that? guest: an excellent question. there are a number of parts to it. i really appreciate the

opportunity to address the issues. the issue of race in the criminal justice system is a serious one. the way in which the african- american community has been treated in particular, although all communities of color in the criminal justice system have been a source of great controversy. and tremendous unfairness in many parts of the country. not just any historic south. but certainly in the historic south as well. this is a subject that is particularly important to me, because in the eastern district of virginia we have the largest number of crack cocaine cases of any federal jurisdiction in the country. this is one of the most unfortunate and controversial areas of federal criminal law over the past 24 years. for many years public defenders and criminal defense attorneys, even judges and prosecutors's,

decried in many places the on foreign us -- unfairness of crack cocaine sentences as opposed to powder cocaine sentences. congress, when they pass the laws in the 1980s, made the penalties much harsher for crack cocaine over powdered cocaine. four years young black men were sent to prison for decades for nondrug -- nonviolent drug offenses for dealing what we would call very small retail amounts of crack cocaine. there are still many people serving long sentences for that. federal defenders were on the forefront of fighting that injustice. for many years they advocated to allow judges to take into consideration this very unfair, unwarranted disparity. i have the extraordinary privilege of arguing cases in the supreme court to address this issue. kimbro versus united states. where the supreme court agreed, after many years, that it was more than appropriate for

therict judges to consider unwarranted disparity and disparate racial impact that had caused so many young black men to be sent to jail for so long. as a result, judges have taken that disparity into consideration since 2007, imposing shorter sentences. they are still too long, but they are much shorter than they were before. as a result, this has helped thousands of defendants in federal prisons, most of whom, overwhelmingly, have been african-american, getting their sentences reduced. that was approved first by the sentencing commission, and then by congress, when they made penalties more lenient. the penalties now are and 18 to one ratio as opposed to a 100 to one ratio. there is still unfairness there. we still have a long way to go, but federal defenders have worked very hard for racial justice and to address the

unfairness in the system that has hit communities of color much harder than other communities. host: a question from twitter -- [laughter] well, a very fair question. alluding to the fact that congress has expanded the range of crimes that are covered in federal court. 20 years, 30 years ago, drug crimes, crimes of robbery, firearm crimes, were primarily prosecuted by the state. of course, they still are. as time has gone by, congress has expanded the number of crimes, including those involving narcotics, which have really balloon to the federal prison population. it has increased dramatically. in fact, our prison population as a whole, as i think about 2.3 million, that represents 25% of

the worlds incarcerated population. now, as a point of comparison, the united states general population is about five percent of the worlds population. so, we really have an enormous number of people both in prison and on supervision. and we have an enormous number as compared to any other country in the world, including all the western democracies. the question becomes -- have we made penalties too harsh? have we made too many things a criminal violation of the law as opposed to a civil or regulatory violation? and is it appropriate? are we wasting billions of dollars per year not making the country safer, but potentially incarcerating people who could be productive citizens, if given the opportunity? a callur guest will take now from david, east hartford, connecticut. we have about 15 minutes left in the segment with michael nachmanoff.

david is a republican. hello, there. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. hi. i do not want to be team criminal, but maybe you can relate. i am 34 and i have spent half of my time since graduating high school in virginia. appearme ago, i had to before a judge for a failure to appear for misdemeanor charges that were dismissed. it was a clerical error. then last year i went to apply for work and that same charge came up on a background check. i do not know if i am off-topic, but is there a system that can fix that sort of problem? i will take my answer off the air. guest: sure. it is a complicated question. the way in which criminal records are kept is not universal. there are federal databases and local databases.

sometimes when people have an interaction with the criminal justice system, especially in states where it sounds like, with your situation, where it is hard to know where that information goes, sometimes it can show up when someone applies for a job. what i would recommend, without knowing really anything about your situation, is to contact the court in charlottesville. there are mechanisms for trying to address whether or not there is an outstanding matter. there are certain ways in which certain kinds of charges can be expunged. expunged means taken off your record. that is limited. it varies from a two state. this is the sort of thing that can recur, if something is in the database. we often see that there are mistakes and databases. it requires a lot of work to get it undone, but my recommendation is to go to the source, go back to the original court, find out what is going on, and see if there is a way of taking it out of the system. host: denise, california,

democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say hello. i used to work for mr. kramer, in the district of columbia, for eight years. i wanted to let people know how dedicated the federal defenders are. they work with a lot of cases and without a whole lot of money. especially since this congressional defunding, essentially. i just wanted to say thank you for all the work that you do. i am no longer with the federal government. but i have been around. i am still in the business and we get a few cases from the sea a, which has also been kindly defended. if you can find attorneys to take all the cases. any questions, while we have you? caller: no, i just wanted to say thank you. thank you.

aj kramer, a terrific guy, i am sure he would have been happy to be here today, he is just down the street. plenty of people work for federal defenders around the country and they are tremendously loyal and dedicated to the program. criminal justice act attorneys also perform an important service. when they take these cases, they are choosing to take cases at a lower rate than if they accepted cases on a private basis. they really are not doing it for the money. they are doing it as a service to the court and a service to the client. as a result of the sequester, one of the actions that was taken to try and preserve this program was temporarily reducing the hourly rate that his lawyers were paid. that was done in order to try to keep the lawsuits against federal defenders from being

even greater, but it is a big sacrifice. over the long haul if the rate does not come back up, the fear is that very good, highly qualified lawyers will feel that they simply cannot afford to take these cases. that they cannot even pay their overhead. so, the quality will diminish if we do not work hard to ensure adequate funding for federal defenders and criminal justice lawyers. thank you for the call. host: another twitter question -- guest: sure.g -- again, i would go back to say that they are not necessarily constitutionally required. the sixth amendment requires that any person charged with a crime where they are facing jail time be represented by counsel. so, that is the constitutional basis for federal defenders and for cj lawyers.

in federal court, there is no mathematical formula that judges use. if a person wants a court appointed counsel, and about 90% of all appointments get counsel, they have to fill out an affidavit and submit it to the court. the court reviews that and then they decide whether the person is eligible. generally, people -- even people good, white-collar jobs, do not have the resources to retain a lawyer for any sort of serious charge in federal court. orcan cost tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the case. even people who have a steady qualify.n they will the other issue that often arises in federal court is the government is able to restrain assets in many cases. cases involving financial crimes, narcotics, national security. there is a whole list that

allows federal government to see his -- allows the federal government to seize bank accounts from people with substantial means. if the government is allowed to restrain the assets before trial , people who would otherwise not be indigent or not qualify, they must get court-appointed counsel because the government will not allow them to use their assets. under the theory that they are the proceeds of illegal activity or substitute of assets the government would be entitled to if the person was convicted. host: joe, connecticut, thanks for hanging on. are you there? i don't have joe. caller: hello? host: joe? yes, hi there. caller: a quick question. have you ever considered trying to get access to the money that

is indigent that is seized by the government? goes to the government, but why should some of that money not go to the defender side? guest: a very good question. a debate that is ongoing in congress and elsewhere. there are those who believe that if the money is being seized than it would be equitable and fair to distribute some of that too fond of equitable defense. other strongly believe that it poses an ethical conflict, that federal defenders do not want to be in the position of getting money from the very clients that they represent. argument could apply to fines, for example, that the government -- when they collect punitive fines, some of that money could perhaps be given to fund indigent defense. get it poses the same problem, which is that as federal defenders our loyalty is solely

to our clients. it goes back hundreds of years, to the common law in england. we do not want to be in the position where something bad or negative that happens to our clients could benefit the institutional defense function. that is the argument on that side of the issue. host: one more question from twitter -- well, the constitution applies to people, whether they are citizens or not. the sixth amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, our constitution applies to anyone in this country. if they are charged with a crime , they are entitled to counsel. person who wrote that may be thinking, perhaps, of removal or deportation proceedings. in other words if someone is undocumented and comes into this country and were picked up, they could be put into the administrative process of being

removed from the country. in other words, determined that they were not eligible to enter. then they are put in what is a prison or a jail, it is called administrative detention. it is not considered punitive, although certainly if you are sitting in jail it may feel punitive. those people do not have a right to counsel. there is no constitutional right to counsel. for immigration proceedings, but the government has, and i mentioned it earlier, decided to criminally prosecute thousands of people for immigration offenses. those noncitizens do qualify for court appointed counsel and are represented, subsequently they would often be turned over to the immigration authorities for deportation. whether they are able to challenge that is something they have to do on their own, or through pope -- through pro bono attorney services. it is a very difficult area of the law for them. texas, sean, for

michael nachmanoff. go ahead, please. question, iain would like him to explain on .eferred adjudication if someone has not been convicted of a crime and they served everything on deferred adjudication, putting them back on the chopping block, so to speak, how is the federal government -- they do not recognize that. they change the law in 1996 for illegal aliens. how has -- why have they not federald by someone in government for double jeopardy? can you explain that? that is my main question. yes, that is a complicated issue that i am not sure that i understand entirely. the concept for deferred adjudication is the idea that a person might be placed on relation or supervision for a.

of time and the adjudication, the ultimate resolution of the case is delayed. so, if they comply with probation, the case may be -- may be dismissed over a. of time. sometimes referred to as that version. it is a function of state law. i am not referred to -- familiar with the law of deferred adjudication in texas, but the second part of the call referred to double jeopardy, the idea that you cannot be put in jeopardy twice for the same time -- for the same crime. double jeopardy does not apply to separate sovereigns. when states prosecute, it does not as a constitutional matter precludes a federal government from bringing a subsequent prosecution. it may be a bad idea, it may be bad policy. there are internal rules about when such cases can be brought,

but the idea that if the state of texas brings a case and then the federal government brings the case, then that is a constitutional violation, that may not be the case. again, not sure if i understood the question, but that gives you a general idea. host: james, decatur, west virginia. james, are you there? are you with us? in saltve onto randy, lake city. independent. randy, are you there? caller: i am here. host: good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, based on two things i have seen in the news recently, a congressman busted for buying cocaine, another one was -- a teenager with his friends ripped off a bunch of people at a party, killing four and injuring several others. none of these, or either of these people were present or had

anything done to them. my question is why. normally he would be facing life in prison for either of these offenses. what is the difference? thank you. this is a question that anyone in the criminal justice system deals with on a daily basis, the perception that rings can be very unfair. the depending on your station in life, where you are, or the hack and -- the happenstance of who brought the case, or other circumstances, that the result would be did -- would be very different than it would be for another person. i am not familiar with the case involving the deaths of people. i am a little bit familiar with the congressman's case. the way that these drug crimes are treated, especially possession as opposed to distribution, that has really

changed over time. of course, we are seeing a sea change in certain parts of the country regarding the legalization of marijuana. it is true, however, that based on socioeconomic status, based on race, based on ethnicity, a person may well be faced with with charged, or be faced a consequence that is much harsher than someone else. i think a federal defenders are really motivated, in great part, by making sure that there is equal access to justice and that that does not happen. that a person who is poor, that a person who does not have means can get the same benefits. whether it is leniency, second chance, or a deferred adjudication. the criminal justice system, at the state and federal level, has always had equities. i think justice act attorneys have done a true menace job of trying to make sure that high- quality representation is provided to people without means. host: just another couple of

minutes. teresa, please be brief, if you can. hey, there. caller: hello. i wanted to speak about my son. when he wasled convicted. it was pornography. he was retried as diminished capacity. his judgment was way off. he was getting a divorce. his public defender did not do well by him. he got 17 years in prison. has not seen his children in four years. now he is down in a prison in louisiana and not able to see his kids. they cannot get to him. he is not a person of means. i cannot even get to see him. i have tried all avenues. i have tried so hard.

i really just do not know what to do. but here in missouri, the justice system, the federal justice system is not fair. i am very sorry to hear that. sadly, that is a story that is not as uncommon as it should be. the penalties for child pornography or sex related crimes are extraordinarily harsh . recent surveys of federal judges have reflected that many federal judges agree with that assessment, that the guidelines and the mandatory minimums that congress has passed are often disproportionate to the harm. these are serious crimes, no doubt. no one can dispute that. but whether or not a person should ever be sent to jail for 17 years, or in your son's case, for viewing what is illegal images, that is a real policy question. but ultimately it is a failure

of the justice system as a whole that starts with the laws passed by congress. pornographychild and sexually related crimes has been one in which congress has increased penalties repeatedly. the reality of how that impacts individual people and individual families can often be very devastating. i am sorry that that has happened to you and your family. our guest has been michael nachmanoff. thank you for the insight. thank you forest: having me. host: we will be back tomorrow morning, like we are every day. have a great day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]